SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH – Attorney General Sean D. Reyes joined an amicus brief, led by the State of Indiana, to the Supreme Court of the United States in Idaho v. United States. The case involves an effort by the federal government to “prevent hospitals receiving Medicare funds in Idaho from complying with Idaho’s abortion regulations.”  

The federal government is attempting to use the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) to override Idaho’s lawfully enacted policies and regulations governing access to abortion. Congress passed EMTALA under its Spending Clause authority to promote the “stabilization of patients with emergency medical conditions” in “hospitals accepting Medicaid funds.” The federal government argues that EMTALA preempts enforcement of Idaho’s abortion law for hospitals that accept Medicaid. The coalition of attorneys general supporting the State of Idaho believe that this claim, if accepted by courts, would set a dangerous precedent that gives federal bureaucrats and private parties authority to disregard state health laws. 

In their brief, the coalition of attorneys general argue that “EMTALA does not preempt generally applicable state laws regulating the medical profession, including laws protecting unborn lives,” that “the United States’ expansive preemption theory raises significant Constitutional difficulties of great importance to the States,” and that “the United States lacks a cause of action to sue States to enforce conditions of federal grants to non-state entities.” 

As the States write, “In the United States’ view, the federal government can pay hospitals to violate Idaho’s abortion laws with impunity – and then itself sue the State of Idaho to enjoin those laws as a matter of federal supremacy. Or put another way, the United States believes that the federal government can establish a financial relationship directly with a citizen that, at the citizen’s election, immunizes the citizen from state police power.” 

Joining Utah and Indiana on this brief were the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming. 

Read the brief here. 

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH – Attorney General Sean D. Reyes joined an amicus brief, led by the State of Mississippi, to the Supreme Court of the United States in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v FDA. This case challenges a series of changes and approvals from the U.S. Food and Drug Association’s (FDA) over the Mifepristone drug for abortions. 

Earlier this year, a pair of U.S. District Judges in competing federal circuits issued rulings for challenges to FDA approvals of Mifepristone across the past two decades that have served to expand access to the abortive drug. Both rulings were advanced to the respective appeals courts. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit narrowed the decision from the district court, ruling that the FDA’s approvals from 2016-current were allowable to litigate under the statute of limitations, but that the agency’s approval from the year 2000 was not. The Alliance seeks to overturn the FDA’s unlawful changes to processes, procedures, and administration of Mifepristone from 2016-current, as well as to include the 2000 changes in this case.   

In their brief, the States argue that “the FDA’s flawed approval of Mifepristone has created an unlawful nationwide abortion-drug regime” and that “allowing the FDA’s unlawful regime to stand would undermine the public-interest determination properly made by states.” 

As the coalition of attorneys general write, “The federal government claims that it has the power to make abortion drugs broadly accessible despite contrary determinations by States and despite laws that States have enacted to protect life, health, and safety in the use of those drugs. That claim is wrong. No federal law shows a ‘clear and manifest purpose’ to displace state law in this context. … States are thus entitled to enforce their laws against those involved in sending or receiving such drugs by mail.” 

Joining Utah and Mississippi on this brief were the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming.  

Read the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA brief here. 

Read the School District of Martinsville v. A.C. brief here.

SALT LAKE CITY – Recently, the Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Rights, and Division of Forestry, Fire & State Lands joined together to file motions to dismiss litigation alleging the state is required to curtail vested water rights in the interest of maintaining a specific level in the Great Salt Lake.

The Great Salt Lake is an important resource and critical component of the ecosystem in northern Utah. The state is heavily invested in protecting and enhancing the lake. In the last two years, the Legislature has appropriated about a half billion dollars into programs to bolster the lake. These programs include: a Watershed Enhancement Program to find ways to retain and enhance water flows to sustain the Great Salt Lake; a Water Trust by which water rights may be sold, leased or donated to the Great Salt Lake; turf buy-back programs; the creation of the office of the Great Salt Lake commissioner to coordinate efforts across agencies; water measurement; agricultural optimization; and other endeavors.

Additionally, Gov. Spencer Cox has suspended future water appropriations in the Great Salt Lake basin, and the state has implemented policy changes to help preserve and protect the lake. The Legislature has created various legal mechanisms that bolster the state’s stewardship of Great Salt Lake. These mechanisms include the ability to dedicate water rights for the enhancement of the natural aquatic environment of the Great Salt Lake, the establishment of a water banking framework, the creation of split-season leases, and the opportunity for saved water—realized through agricultural optimization projects—to be committed to the lake.

While undertaking these efforts, the state was sued.

The state shares the plaintiffs’ concern for a healthy Great Salt Lake and the surrounding environment. Litigation, however, cannot solve every problem, and indeed, directs important resources away from efforts to conserve and enhance the lake. The state will continue its work to save the Great Salt Lake for future generations.

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH – Attorney General Sean D. Reyes led an amicus brief to the Supreme Court of the United States in Texas v. New Mexico. The case involves a proposed resolution of a dispute over water rights between several states, which the federal government is attempting to block. 

In 2014, Texas sued New Mexico and Colorado claiming that New Mexico had breached the 1939 Rio Grande Compact, which apportions water from the Rio Grande River among the three states. Through mediation, the states were able to largely resolve their dispute and submitted a proposed consent decree to the Special Master, who recommended its approval. The United States, however, intervened in the case and opposed the consent decree. The United States argues the federal government has authority to interpret and enforce the Compact terms and has a role in determining how the state parties comply with the terms of the Compact because some of the water apportioned by the Compact is distributed through a federal water project. 

Utah’s brief argues that the United States’ attempt to block the consent decree encroaches on the compacting state’s sovereign authority to form, interpret, and enforce their interstate compact and that the United States’ federal water project does not expand its limited role in this interstate water compact dispute.  

The States further contend that the federal government is not without recourse in water compact disputes. They explain that if the United States has a claim regarding water apportioned to a federal water project, the United States, like all other water rights holders, may turn to state courts to protect its rights. 

Joining Utah on this brief are the States of Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wyoming.

Read the brief here. 

SALT LAKE CITY, UT—Today, Utah Attorney General Reyes joined a 26-state coalition in an Iowa-led letter to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, urging the Corps to allow oil and gas to flow through the Dakota Access that has safely operated from North Dakota to Illinois for over six years. The letter also opposes the Corps’s proposed alternatives—requiring shutting down, digging up, or building more than 100 extra miles—which will cause significant financial losses, harm to the States, and unnecessary challenges for farmers.

For more than six years, Dakota Access has safely transported crucial oil across the country. It creates thousands of jobs and generates property tax revenue that supports essential services including schools, hospitals, and emergency response. Despite years of safe operation, Dakota Access’s future is uncertain given that a small section of the more than 1,000-mile-long route runs under federal land. The draft environmental impact statement, prepared by the Corps of Engineers, threatens a permanent shutdown.

By shutting Dakota Access down, digging it up, or building a 100+ mile detour, the States will face significant harm. The proposed alternatives will create a cargo crisis by taking Dakota Access oil and redirecting it to trucks and rail. One estimate is that it would require 100 car-long trains and 15,000 tanker trucks operating around the clock to get the oil where it needs to be. Those trains and trucks could be transporting agriculture or other goods—and currently are. The shortage will hurt farmers bringing their goods to market and raise food prices. States will also face hundreds of millions of dollars in potential property tax losses. The States raise serious concerns about federalism and their limited ability under federal law to protect themselves from the risk of more frequent spills by transportation via truck or train.

Iowa led the letter and was joined by Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Read the full letter here.

Christmas in Utah is, without a doubt, the best time of the year. It is a time of excitement, lights, and action. It is a time to spend with family and friends. It is a time to give presents to loved ones and to show people around us how much they are appreciated. It is a time to refresh and recharge our mental and physical batteries from a long, exhausting year.  

Whatever you may be doing for this joyous holiday, we hope you are making memories and cherishing time with those closest to you. The Attorney General’s Office will continue to stay vigilant throughout this season, ensuring that we do our part to enforce the law and keep families safe in their communities.  

Merry Christmas! 

Today, Utah Third District Court Judge Coral Sanchez upheld Utah’s Death Penalty statute by granting a motion to dismiss filed by the Utah Attorney General’s Office. The Plaintiffs on the lawsuit were Ralph Menzies, Taberon Honie, Troy Kell, Douglas Carter and Michael Archuleta. The lawsuit claimed the methods the State uses to execute prisoners “cruel and unusual punishment.”

Menzies has exhausted all appeals of his death sentence. His execution will be scheduled when a death warrant is issued.

Read the judge’s ruling here.

Today, Utah Attorney General Sean D. Reyes addressed the state’s lawsuit against TikTok on Fox News ‘America’s Newsroom’.

During the interview, AG Reyes said, “What we are concerned about is the mounting evidence of the devastating impact on mental health, on the emotional wellbeing, on the social psychological behavioral effects of social media. And this is not just us, this is the experts from the AMA, this is the Mayo Clinic, It’s a bipartisan issue. And in Utah, we’re fired up, we’re ready to defend the laws the legislature passed and the governor signed.”

Watch the full interview here.

Yesterday, the Utah Attorney General’s office charged Timothy Francis Mooney for improperly paying two individuals to gather signatures in the second congressional district primary election ahead of the July 5, 2023, deadline.

The two charges, Violation of Certificate of Nomination Procedures, are Class A misdemeanors. According to the Utah Election Code, compensation cannot be paid directly based on the number of signatures submitted to filing officers. Evidence shows that Mooney agreed to pay $16 per gross signature rather than an hourly rate or per verified signature.

Earlier this year, the Utah Lieutenant Governor requested an investigation based on evidence of a violation of the Utah Election Code, which forbids paying to circulate a nomination petition based on the gross number of signatures submitted to a filing officer.

A continuing investigation is underway into those who received payments to gather signatures.

Read the Information document here.

SALT LAKE CITY – Today, Utah Attorney General Sean D. Reyes and a bipartisan group of 52 other attorneys general today announced a $700 million agreement with Google in their lawsuit about Google’s anticompetitive conduct with the Google Play Store.

“The States are fiercely fighting the greed and abuses of certain BigTech on multiple fronts,” said Attorney General Reyes. “Utah has been a leader and driving force in holding Google accountable for the past ten years. This was evident again on this case as our fantastic AG antitrust team was one of the first and loudest advocates for investigating and litigating payments on Google Play.

“When many experts and other states were hesitant or even opposed, Utah pushed to start the case and has helped navigate it towards resolution in spite of the risks and Google’s massive defense. We are most pleased the settlement includes many of the injunctive remedies we sought that will change Google’s behavior. The dollar amounts are an added bonus to provide relief to Utahns who use Android apps.”

Google will pay $630 million in restitution to consumers who were harmed by Google’s anticompetitive practices from August 2016 to September 2023. Google will pay the states an additional $70 million in penalties. Restitution recipients do not need to submit a claim – they will receive payments automatically through PayPal or Venmo, or they can choose to receive a check or ACH transfer instead. More details about that process will be forthcoming. The agreement also requires Google to make its business practices more pro-competitive in various ways.

Utah expects to receive approximately $15 million between payments that will go to consumers and directly to the State.

In 2021, the attorneys general sued Google, alleging Google unlawfully monopolized Android app distribution and in-app payment processing. Specifically, the States claimed that Google signed anticompetitive contracts to prevent other app stores from being preloaded on Android devices, bought off key app developers who might have launched rival app stores, and created technological barriers to deter consumers from directly downloading apps to their devices. The states announced a settlement in principle on September 5, 2023, and today released the finalized terms of that deal.

The settlement requires Google to reform its business practices in the following ways:

• Allow users to pay through in-app billing systems other than Google Play Billing for at least five years.
• Offer cheaper prices for their apps and in-app products to consumers who use alternative, non-Google billing systems for at least five years.
• Allow developers to steer consumers toward alternative, non-Google billing systems by advertising lower prices within their apps for at least five years.
• Not enter into contracts that require the Play Store to be the exclusive, pre-loaded app store on a device or home screen for at least five years.
• Allow third-party apps on Android phones outside the Google Play Store for at least seven years.
• Revise and reduce the warnings on an Android device if a user attempts to download a third-party app from outside the Google Play Store for at least five years.
• Maintain Android system support for third-party app stores, including automatic updates, for four years.
• Not require developers to launch their app catalogs on the Play Store at the same time as other app stores for at least four years.
• Submit compliance reports to an independent monitor who will ensure that Google is not continuing its anticompetitive conduct for at least five years.

For much of this case, the attorneys general litigated alongside Epic Games and Match, two major app developers. Match announced a separate settlement earlier this year, while Epic Games went to trial. A jury unanimously found that Google’s anticompetitive conduct violated federal antitrust laws early last week.

This lawsuit was led by the Attorneys General from Utah, North Carolina, Tennessee, New York, and California and joined by the attorneys general of all remaining states, the District of Columbia and the territories of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

Read a copy of the settlement document.